Re: [ga] "Intervenor" fees. Has ICANN/WIPO followed Calif's. Insurance industry?

[Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 May 2012 06:27, Jeffrey Williams <jwkckid2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Seems that the UDRP was modeled after this now changing Calif. Insurance
> practice.
>

This is one of your usual, un-evidenced, controversial assertions. It's the
internet. Give us a link or two?


>  How does this aid consumers/users?
> What intrinsic benefits do users gain other than a great potential for
> misinformation?  The emperor has no clothes.
>

A system where: "These consumer representatives (intervenors) are entitled
to compensation for their reasonable advocacy fees and expenses they incur
in proceedings conducted by the Department. " is similar to UDRP?

I fail to see anything in the current UDRP Rules that allows for similar
funded "consumer advocate" representation. In fact, I can't see anything in
the UDRP rules (5, 10b, 12) that explicitly allows any third party
involvement at all (the Complainant, by this time, definitely not being a
'third party'.)

M.

-- 
Matthew Pemble
Technical Director, Idrach Ltd

Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690